Scruit Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 The Federal Appeals Court in New York (2nd circuit?) joins Boston in ruling DOMA 1996 Sec.3 unconstitutional.Supreme Court is next.http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/18/ny-appeals-court-nixes-defense-of-marriage-act/1641557/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 excellent work... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 But now girls will marry girls and the planet will spin uncontrollably into the sun...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) I don't know how it will be defended in the supreme court, John Boehner has spent the 1.5 million dollars earmarked to defend it already, just in the lower courts...http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/10/17/boehners-doma-defense-hits-15-million-limit Edited October 18, 2012 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imprez55 Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 But now girls will marry girls and the planet will spin uncontrollably into the sun...?No. The girls marrying girls is ok, its when the guys marry guys which will cause the planet to destabilize. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wantahertzdonut Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Hopefully the act will get struck down by the SCOTUS as well. If nothing else, I'm tired of hearing the debate!And"It's fabulous news for same-sex couples in New York and other states," he said.Am I the only one who snickered a little when they read that line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brownsfan1 Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Hopefully the act will get struck down by the SCOTUS as well. If nothing else, I'm tired of hearing the debate!AndAm I the only one who snickered a little when they read that line? No, I did too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 I look forward to the informed and rational discourse from the resident biblethumpers and bigots on OR. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 I have no idea why the government needs to be involved in marriage at all in the first place. I also don't understand how they can't be able to define it any way it wants to. No one has to opt into the system and why would you want to give up your rights to have the government regulate your actions? For the religious folks that are supposed to be conservative to ask the government to offer them special privileges and protection just seems hypocritical. If the religious folks had kept marriage out of the governments hands in the first place they would be able to define it as they wish but that ship has sailed so sit down shut up and take your medicine like big boys. When inter-racial marriage laws were changed these same religious folks fought against the changes and I find their opposition just as ridiculous today. Bottom line if you don't want your shit fucked up keep the government out of it because it fucks up everything. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 but guys... guys... tip touching tip. just think about it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 I have no idea why the government needs to be involved in marriage at all in the first place. I also don't understand how they can't be able to define it any way it wants to. This seems contradictory. If the government doesn't need to be involved, then why do they have to create a definition for marriage at all? One would think that by virtue of the government's (and I'm painting broadly, federal and state) non-involvement, that the definition and institution of marriage would fall on the churches that started the concept in the first place.Your other points aren't without merit, though. It would be just as easy to allow non-married people to allow their partner to be included as next-of-kin, cover them under their insurance, give them medical or full power of attorney, stuff like that. However, as you said, that's not the world we live in, and the least we could do is allow equal rights to everyone within the constructs of the system we've created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 but guys... guys... tip touching tip. just think about it.nothing wrong with a good swordfight every now and then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 The problem with marriage is that it's a two-party system. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Not for Mormons. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 nothing wrong with a good swordfight every now and thenbut it could potentially end like this if you let the tips go at it too long.nobody wants that, no matter how fabulous it might be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 I look forward to the informed and rational discourse from the resident biblethumpers and bigots on OR.Think you may be in the wrong place if that's what you're waiting for... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snot Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 To each there own...do what makes you and the one (s) your with happy.So does this also mean a marriage can consists of 3 or more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1crusher Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Only if you want a stupid TV show displaying yourself for the country to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snot Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Not my style... just wondering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 However disgusting 2 guys or 2 girls wanna be in the privacy of their home is their business, none of my business. However........ marriage plain and simply is between a man and a woman, but I have "no issue" with same sex couples having rights to benefits and similar perks as married couples. But seriously.........that is not marriage, never has been and never will be no matter what laws are passed. Take notice of how I have mentioned nothing about religion or belief systems, yet marriage has always been between a man and a woman. A person doesnt need to fit the criteria of a bigot or a bible thumper to see/believe/understand the obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 However disgusting 2 guys or 2 girls wanna be in the privacy of their home is their business, none of my business. However........ marriage plain and simply is between a man and a woman, but I have "no issue" with same sex couples having rights to benefits and similar perks as married couples. But seriously.........that is not marriage, never has been and never will be no matter what laws are passed. Take notice of how I have mentioned nothing about religion or belief systems, yet marriage has always been between a man and a woman. A person doesnt need to fit the criteria of a bigot or a bible thumper to see/believe/understand the obvious.Just so I understand you correctly, you're ambivalent to gay marriage on personal terms ("whatever they do in their bedroom"), no issue with the civil side of things (which is what this whole thing has always been about), but you don't want them to get married so they, can't enjoy all the things you're so ambivalent about?I'll ask you this then, if it's "none of your business" what they do in the privacy of their own homes, how is your life personally affected or your quality of life diminished by gay people getting married?Your position is far from obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Just so I understand you correctly, you're ambivalent to gay marriage on personal terms ("whatever they do in their bedroom"), no issue with the civil side of things (which is what this whole thing has always been about), but you don't want them to get married so they, can't enjoy all the things you're so ambivalent about?I'll ask you this then, if it's "none of your business" what they do in the privacy of their own homes, how is your life personally affected or your quality of life diminished by gay people getting married?Your position is far from obvious.Doesn't affect me one way or the other, just stated my personal opinion on the matter. Same sex isn't marriage, nothing or nobody will convince me otherwise. Allow same sex couples to have some of the benefits and perks of being married, but it still isnt marriage in most of the "world". I have gay friends and they are great people, have no issue with homosexuals, just the whole idea and notion of same sex marriage. I would bet 90% of forum members would agree with me, but will not voice their view for obvious reasons. So what is my obvious position, and could the same not be said for you? We are all biased toward how we feel or believe, whether right or wrong in the majority eye. So since this is in "civil terms", would this be defined as civil marriage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurkvinny Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 I do not care what two adults do to - or with - each other. I don't even care if they get the financial perks. More power to them.What bothers me is when said couples decide to have/adopt children. That is where I draw a line. I will always believe a little kid has a right to grow up with a Mother and a Father.Save the debate about how awful some traditional marriages are and how super-awesome some gay couples are. It's just not right to exclude half the equation from a kid, if it's avoidable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 I look forward to the informed and rational discourse from the resident biblethumpers and bigots on OR.Think you may be in the wrong place if that's what you're waiting for...I do not care what two adults do to - or with - each other. I don't even care if they get the financial perks. More power to them.What bothers me is when said couples decide to have/adopt children. That is where I draw a line. I will always believe a little kid has a right to grow up with a Mother and a Father.Save the debate about how awful some traditional marriages are and how super-awesome some gay couples are. It's just not right to exclude half the equation from a kid, if it's avoidable.It took 3 pages (or 60% of 1 NinjaNick page), but I'm gonna go ahead and ask Cheech to sign below for his delivery from nurkvinny.____________________________. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Marriage has changed definitions several times throughout history...It used to be a property exchange, man gives his daughter and things to another man. (or sometimes the other man would give the father things for his daughter, depending upon how desirable said daughter was)NOW it is a consensual financial relationship between 2 adults... to be viewed by the state as 1 entity. Why should 2 individuals be denied this option just because their genitals happen to match? or furthermore because they have the same number of X chromosomes?And who says having 2 parents of different gender identities is a better system than 2 parents with the same gender identity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.